File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0303, message 487


From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:27:40 EST
Subject: Re: Being & Time Part 2



--part1_6.d9a646e.2bb8d76c_boundary
Content-Language: en

In a message dated 30/03/2003 23:44:47 GMT Daylight Time, crifasi-AT-hotmail.com
writes:


> Subj:Re: Being & Time Part 2
> Date:30/03/2003 23:44:47 GMT Daylight Time
> From:    crifasi-AT-hotmail.com (Anthony Crifasi)
> Sender:    owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu">heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu</A>
> To:    heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>
>
>
>
> Jud wrote:
>
> >The word leaf sententionally existentialises the subject, whilst the "is"
> >attributes the predicational greenness.
> >Functionally the "is" associates the self existentialised leaf to the
> >predicational information which it attributes concatenationally.
> >
> >The sentential or propositional   introduction of the subject [extantal
> >imbuant] with the employment of the definite article and the word
> >leaf
> >does not necessarily existentialise the leaf in actuality, unless the leaf
> >truly does have a temporal  referent in the real world or its extantness
> >has
> >been established and verified  antecedally in the conversation.
> >
> >The sentence The leaf is green may well be a quote from a work of
> >fiction.
> >  If on the other hand we were addressing a real leaf, and you were looking
> >over my shoulder at a real leaf, and I said:  The leaf is green then
> >the
> >words The leaf would actually have a referent in the veridical world
> >and
> >the sentential existentialisation would be existentially verified, and
> >there
> >would be a sentential-temporal corroboration.
>
> Then according to this, it is impossible to linguistically express actual
> existence, because neither the predicate ("is green") nor the subject ("The
> leaf") distinguish the sentence "The leaf is green" in a work of fiction
> from when I am looking over my shoulder at a "real" leaf. In fact, even the
> words "actual existence" and "real" can be from a work of fiction, and
> therefore cannot be the distinguishing linguistic factor. In fact, ANY word
> can be from work of fiction, and therefore it would be absolutely
> impossible
> to linguistically express actual existence.
>
> Anthony Crifasi

Jud:
Very astute of you Anthony.  I'm tired now, but I'll answer this message. If
looking over my shoulder we both see, touch, smell the leaf, etc., and
apprehend its greenness we have temporal confirmation =E2=80=94  existential
confirmation. All other propositions should be treated with caution however.
Experience is vital in this area (I am an experientialist) and as one goes
through life one accumulates knowledge and data concerning
what exists in what ways and what does not exist in any way or ways. My
advice to you all is whenever you come across an IS-word in a sentence - 
treat it circumspectly - if in doubt as to the veracity of the predicational
information it attributes to the self-existentialised subject - check it out
- for the IS-word is an icon that can be clicked in order to access
verificational information to support or reject the predicate as being a
truthful one. By clicking "IS" you are clicking yourself into verificational
activity.

Circumstance and context play a vital part in any consideration of
prepositional veracity.
Again you are right when you say that: "it is impossible to linguistically
express actual existence" for the simple reason that "existence" doesn't
exist  - only existents [entities] exist, and not the state of their
existing. 

The bottom line? In our ordinary lives we are forced to take most of the
existential claims on face value and on the basis of trust tempered by
experience. It depends on who you are dealing with as regards to whether you
accept or believe that something exists or exists in a certain way. Most
sentences are asseverations so be careful.
If in doubt - check it out!  If an entity is there in front of you and you
can see it, feel it, smell it, taste it, hear it you can be fairly certain
that it exists.

Please do not respond (as a last desperate Berkeleyan clutching at straws)
that we cannot be sure of anything existing outside of our heads Anthony -
for that is so crazy and pass=C3=A9 it's not worth discussing anymore - my answer
would be that I AM CONVINCED there's a world out there, and that's all that
matters.


Cheers,

Jud.

<A HREF="http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ ">http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/</A>
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
<A HREF="http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com">http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com
</A>

--part1_6.d9a646e.2bb8d76c_boundary

HTML VERSION:

Content-Language: en In a message dated 30/03/2003 23:44:47 GMT Daylight Time, crifasi-AT-hotmail.com writes:


Subj:Re: Being & Time Part 2
Date:30/03/2003 23:44:47 GMT Daylight Time
From:    crifasi-AT-hotmail.com (Anthony Crifasi)
Sender:    owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
To:    heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu




Jud wrote:

>The word leaf sententionally existentialises the subject, whilst the "is"
>attributes the predicational greenness.
>Functionally the "is" associates the self existentialised leaf to the
>predicational information which it attributes concatenationally.
>
>The sentential or propositional   introduction of the subject [extantal
>imbuant] with the employment of the definite article and the word
>leaf
>does not necessarily existentialise the leaf in actuality, unless the leaf
>truly does have a temporal  referent in the real world or its extantness
>has
>been established and verified  antecedally in the conversation.
>
>The sentence The leaf is green may well be a quote from a work of
>fiction.
>  If on the other hand we were addressing a real leaf, and you=20were looking
>over my shoulder at a real leaf, and I said:  The leaf is green then
>the
>words The leaf would actually have a referent in the veridical world
>and
>the sentential existentialisation would be existentially verified, and
>there
>would be a sentential-temporal corroboration.

Then according to this, it is impossible to linguistically express actual
existence, because neither the predicate ("is green") nor the subject ("The
leaf") distinguish the sentence "The leaf is green" in a work of fiction
from when I am looking over my shoulder at a "real" leaf. In fact, even=20the
words "actual existence" and "real" can be from a work of fiction, and
therefore cannot be the distinguishing linguistic factor. In fact, ANY word
can be from work of fiction, and therefore it would be absolutely impossible
to linguistically express actual existence.

Anthony Crifasi


Jud:
Very astute of you Anthony.  I'm tired now, but I'll answer this message. If looking over my shoulder we both see, touch, smell the leaf, etc., and apprehend its greenness we have temporal confirmation =E2=80=94  existential confirmation. All other propositions should be treated with caution however.
Experience is vital in this area (I am an experientialist) and as one goes through life one accumulates knowledge and data concerning
what exists in what ways and what does not exist in any way or ways. My=20advice to you all is whenever you come across an IS-word in a sentence -  treat it circumspectly - if in doubt as to the veracity of the predicational information it attributes to the self-existentialised subject - check it out - for the IS-word is an icon that can be clicked in order to access verificational information to support or reject the predicate as being a truthful one. By clicking "IS" you are clicking yourself into verificational activity.

Circumstance and context play a vital part in any consideration of prepositional veracity.
Again you are right when you say that: "it is impossible to linguistically express actual existence" for the simple reason that "existence" doesn't exist  - only existents [entities] exist, and not=20the state of their existing.  

The bottom line? In our ordinary lives we are forced to take most of the existential claims on face value and on the basis of trust tempered by experience. It depends on who you are dealing with as regards to whether you accept or believe that something exists or exists in a certain way. Most sentences are asseverations so be careful.
If in doubt - check it out!  If an entity is there in front of you=20and you can see it, feel it, smell it, taste it, hear it you can be fairly certain that it exists.

Please do not respond (as a last desperate Berkeleyan clutching at straws) that we cannot be sure of anything existing outside of our heads Anthony=20- for that is so crazy and pass=C3=A9 it's not worth discussing anymore - my answer would be that I AM CONVINCED there's a world out there, and that's all that matters.


Cheers,

Jud.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com
--part1_6.d9a646e.2bb8d76c_boundary-- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005